Why gayness can never be eliminated or even reduced in the human race
Male testicle size is often indicative of whether males and females of a specie are monogamous or promiscuous. In male animals with typically small testicles matings tend to be monogamous. In animals with very large testicles couples tend to be more promiscuous. Male human testicles are in the medium size range which is a biological indicator that human male and female couples tend to be somewhere in the middle between monogamous and promiscuous. Human couples aren't evolved for exclusive monogamous relationships.
Some months ago, a JMG reader asked me if I had any ideas about some shocking behavior between gay and straight men he'd witnessed in the 1950's. Apparently a gang of heterosexual men would seek out a group of gay men. The heterosexual men would force the gay men to perform fellatio on them in an alley-way and during the...orgy(?) the heterosexual men would be punching and kicking the men performing fellatio on them telling them things like "You worthless pervert,suck my dick" and the gay men would be saying things like "I am a terrible person, I deserve to be punched by you, thankyou for beating me" and so on.
I tried to find that comment this evening but unfortunately Disqus only keeps the last couple months of comments so I couldn't get the exact text. Anyway, I thought about it a lot and although it strikes me as an improbable story and I find it a bit hard to believe it actually happened, I realize it could have happened and here's what I think was going on between these gay and heterosexual men:
Both the gay and straight men wanted to engage in this sexual activity but its not acceptable to their society to be gay, so they excuse this sexual contact to themselves by the heterosexual men telling themselves "I'm not guilty of having gay sex because I'm doing this to punish and humiliate these gay men for being gay, not because I enjoy sex with a man." and the gay men telling themselves "I'm being punished for engaging in this gay sex, so that absolves me of guilt for engaging in gay sex.". Due to a disapproving society both the heterosexual and gay men needed these rationalizations to give themselves permission to engage in sex with each other.
I've thought about why gay men exist for decades now and like many could never resolve the seeming contradiction of a behavioral trait being passed on by natural selection and gay men not having any desire to procreate. Recently the reason gay men are always born in similar numbers throughout history finally occurred to me:
----------------------------------------------
Gay men are born to lessen the pressures of sexual demands, activity, and child bearing on females. By providing an additional sexual outlet to a tribe's more aggessive and potentially violent heterosexual males, gay men help the survivability of the tribe as a whole, rather than the survivability of their individual genes. Gay men serve to cushion females from male sexual demands and repercussions as well as to promote harmony between tribal members and to lower the tendency of hyper masculine males towards intra tribal violence - a less sexually frustrated male is a less violent male.
We tend to think of natural selection being nature selecting individuals and sexual selection of mates also operating on an individual basis. The reality is more complex than that, sexual selection also operates on a group, tribal, or society basis. More than one or two individuals can decide which male impregnates which female. When it comes to gay men, their genes have been naturally selected for not because gay men procreate, but because the natural and sexual selection process evolved over eons to operate at the group level to "choose" genes that benefit the passing on of the genes of the group, not any particular individual.
For example, as a person born physically male with say, a 70%/30% attraction to females and males respectively, people like me (and there are a lot of them I'm sure), in cave man days would have had a natural tendency to enter a more or less monogamous relationship with a female, but our evolutionary psychological makeup also would give us a tendency to select males we enjoyed being around and perhaps encouraging a sexual interaction between that male andour informal wives. Thus, my informal wife may have a couple or three children with my genes and one with a male I've sexually selected. Similarly, if a caveman with my psychological makeup were over time to develop a friendship with another male due to providing sex he finds pleasing, he may encourage his defacto wife to mate with me or I simply get an opportunity to do so without his knowledge due to me being close to her by being close to him.
Similarly, females may help sexually select males by their friendship with them which may help those males procreate with her female friends or relatives simply by virtue of increased proximity or by his female friend actively encouraging her female friends or relatives to mate with a male they otherwise would not have. I think most of us have had another person try to "fix us up with" someone they know.
This wider social circle of sexual selection results in a wider variety of beneficial physical/psychological traits to be passed on to future generations than otherwise would be. In cave man days, my defacto wife, due to my influence may have sex with male(s) she otherwise would not have and so the natural/sexual selection process works on the group as well as the individual basis.
This makes for a more varied genetic makeup in the group/tribe than would otherwise exist and is a survival advantage for the group. It is well documented in biology that genetically diverse groups of a species adapt better and survive better over time - there are more varied individuals with a resulting better chance at any individual (or the group as a whole) finding a resource rich previously unexploited environmental niche they can thrive in.
So this does not bode well for anti-gay religious people who dream of ridding humanity of gayness - its never going to happen, gayness is just way too fundamental and ingrained into who we are as people and who so many animals are that reproduce through male/female sex.
Gayness exists in every animal species scientists have looked to find it in. Gayness clearly has existed from very early on in the evolutionary history of life on earth and serves the purpose of lessening the pressures of sexual demands and child bearing on females by providing an alternative outlet for the sexual aggression of males. Gayness is obviously deeply intertwined in the core of our genetic makeup and has been so intertwined in the genes of the animal kingdom as well for hundreds of millions of years. There's simply no way something so at the core of behavior amongst species that procreate sexually can ever be separated from the rest of our genes.
It is destructive to society to try and suppress and deny that gayness is an inevitable and beneficial part of humanity.
Some months ago, a JMG reader asked me if I had any ideas about some shocking behavior between gay and straight men he'd witnessed in the 1950's. Apparently a gang of heterosexual men would seek out a group of gay men. The heterosexual men would force the gay men to perform fellatio on them in an alley-way and during the...orgy(?) the heterosexual men would be punching and kicking the men performing fellatio on them telling them things like "You worthless pervert,suck my dick" and the gay men would be saying things like "I am a terrible person, I deserve to be punched by you, thankyou for beating me" and so on.
I tried to find that comment this evening but unfortunately Disqus only keeps the last couple months of comments so I couldn't get the exact text. Anyway, I thought about it a lot and although it strikes me as an improbable story and I find it a bit hard to believe it actually happened, I realize it could have happened and here's what I think was going on between these gay and heterosexual men:
Both the gay and straight men wanted to engage in this sexual activity but its not acceptable to their society to be gay, so they excuse this sexual contact to themselves by the heterosexual men telling themselves "I'm not guilty of having gay sex because I'm doing this to punish and humiliate these gay men for being gay, not because I enjoy sex with a man." and the gay men telling themselves "I'm being punished for engaging in this gay sex, so that absolves me of guilt for engaging in gay sex.". Due to a disapproving society both the heterosexual and gay men needed these rationalizations to give themselves permission to engage in sex with each other.
I've thought about why gay men exist for decades now and like many could never resolve the seeming contradiction of a behavioral trait being passed on by natural selection and gay men not having any desire to procreate. Recently the reason gay men are always born in similar numbers throughout history finally occurred to me:
----------------------------------------------
Gay men are born to lessen the pressures of sexual demands, activity, and child bearing on females. By providing an additional sexual outlet to a tribe's more aggessive and potentially violent heterosexual males, gay men help the survivability of the tribe as a whole, rather than the survivability of their individual genes. Gay men serve to cushion females from male sexual demands and repercussions as well as to promote harmony between tribal members and to lower the tendency of hyper masculine males towards intra tribal violence - a less sexually frustrated male is a less violent male.
We tend to think of natural selection being nature selecting individuals and sexual selection of mates also operating on an individual basis. The reality is more complex than that, sexual selection also operates on a group, tribal, or society basis. More than one or two individuals can decide which male impregnates which female. When it comes to gay men, their genes have been naturally selected for not because gay men procreate, but because the natural and sexual selection process evolved over eons to operate at the group level to "choose" genes that benefit the passing on of the genes of the group, not any particular individual.
For example, as a person born physically male with say, a 70%/30% attraction to females and males respectively, people like me (and there are a lot of them I'm sure), in cave man days would have had a natural tendency to enter a more or less monogamous relationship with a female, but our evolutionary psychological makeup also would give us a tendency to select males we enjoyed being around and perhaps encouraging a sexual interaction between that male andour informal wives. Thus, my informal wife may have a couple or three children with my genes and one with a male I've sexually selected. Similarly, if a caveman with my psychological makeup were over time to develop a friendship with another male due to providing sex he finds pleasing, he may encourage his defacto wife to mate with me or I simply get an opportunity to do so without his knowledge due to me being close to her by being close to him.
Similarly, females may help sexually select males by their friendship with them which may help those males procreate with her female friends or relatives simply by virtue of increased proximity or by his female friend actively encouraging her female friends or relatives to mate with a male they otherwise would not have. I think most of us have had another person try to "fix us up with" someone they know.
This wider social circle of sexual selection results in a wider variety of beneficial physical/psychological traits to be passed on to future generations than otherwise would be. In cave man days, my defacto wife, due to my influence may have sex with male(s) she otherwise would not have and so the natural/sexual selection process works on the group as well as the individual basis.
This makes for a more varied genetic makeup in the group/tribe than would otherwise exist and is a survival advantage for the group. It is well documented in biology that genetically diverse groups of a species adapt better and survive better over time - there are more varied individuals with a resulting better chance at any individual (or the group as a whole) finding a resource rich previously unexploited environmental niche they can thrive in.
So this does not bode well for anti-gay religious people who dream of ridding humanity of gayness - its never going to happen, gayness is just way too fundamental and ingrained into who we are as people and who so many animals are that reproduce through male/female sex.
Gayness exists in every animal species scientists have looked to find it in. Gayness clearly has existed from very early on in the evolutionary history of life on earth and serves the purpose of lessening the pressures of sexual demands and child bearing on females by providing an alternative outlet for the sexual aggression of males. Gayness is obviously deeply intertwined in the core of our genetic makeup and has been so intertwined in the genes of the animal kingdom as well for hundreds of millions of years. There's simply no way something so at the core of behavior amongst species that procreate sexually can ever be separated from the rest of our genes.
It is destructive to society to try and suppress and deny that gayness is an inevitable and beneficial part of humanity.
Comments